Awful news.
Seems like this is the publishers planned approach going forward, nonstop lawsuits to henpeck the IA to death.
Seems like this is the publishers planned approach going forward, nonstop lawsuits to henpeck the IA to death.
From five months ago, still relevant: https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1bswhdj/if_the...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39908676
"[I]s it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no"
This may be a broad setback to all controlled digital lending. As the saying goes, "play stupid games...".
When I made this criticism before of IA, I was told that that was ridiculous since the publishers had it out for IA before the COVID-19 emergency library. That may or may not have been true, but the publishers did not sue IA despite OpenLibrary existing for years before COVID-19. Publishers didn't pull the trigger because they were afraid of losing. It was a MAD situation, and IA unnecessarily triggered a nuclear war that they lost.